Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth is sorely disappointed to report that on Friday, August 28, 2020, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) issued its initial decision denying the request for correction that we — together with ten 9/11 family members and 88 architects and structural engineers — submitted on April 15, 2020, regarding NIST’s 2008 report on the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7.

Read the September 29, 2020, Announcement of the Appeal Filing >

Our request described in meticulous detail eight items of information in NIST’s Building 7 report that violated the federal Data Quality Act and NIST’s Information Quality Standards. Our goal was to compel NIST to rectify these violations and in so doing reverse its unsupported conclusion that fire was the cause of Building 7’s collapse.

Parties who submit requests for correction under the Data Quality Act are not automatically entitled to receive the corrective action they seek; they must successfully prove their case to the agency. They are, however, entitled to a point-by-point response to all relevant arguments contained in the request when the agency decides not to take corrective action. In this regard, NIST’s response to our request is nothing short of egregious.

Even a cursory reading of NIST’s letter, prepared by the staff of the Engineering Laboratory headquarters, reveals NIST’s response to be a blatant avoidance of the arguments and facts contained in the request, written with the intention of misleading the uninformed reader into believing an adequate response has been provided.

For example, NIST’s only response to the first claim in the request is to describe the position of a key girder and column in relation to each other at room temperature — implying that lateral displacement and walk-off of the girder was possible from this position — when NIST knows full well that what matters is the position of the girder and column in relation to each other at the elevated temperatures claimed by NIST. Even NIST’s own analysis shows that at elevated temperatures the girder would have expanded and become trapped behind the column’s side plate, thus preventing the girder walk-off that is alleged to have initiated a progressive collapse of the building.

 Left: The figure cited by NIST in its response — not drawn to scale — shows the position of the girder in relation to the column at room temperature. Center/Right: NIST and University of Alaska Fairbanks analysis figures both show the position of the girder in relation to the column at elevated temperatures, with the girder expanded and its edge trapped behind the side plate of the column. Red circles highlight the relationship between the edge of the girder and the column side plate.

We rightfully expected that NIST would attempt to address and rebut our claims if it did not take the corrective action being sought. The pseudo-response NIST has issued makes abundantly clear that NIST is unable to rebut any of our claims. Yet rather than comply with the Data Quality Act and correct its deeply unscientific report — or even amend its report to include basic information substantiating its currently unsubstantiated conclusions — NIST has elected to stand by its report and make a mockery of the Data Quality Act.

We and our fellow requesters will appeal NIST’s egregious decision by the September 28, 2020, deadline.* In accordance with NIST’s Information Quality Guidelines, our appeal will be made to NIST Associate Director of Laboratory Programs James K. Olthoff, and no individuals who were involved in the initial denial will be involved in the review of or response to the appeal.

Mr. Olthoff will have the final opportunity to restore NIST’s integrity and prevent legal action against NIST for noncompliance with the Data Quality Act.

Downloads: NIST's Initial Decision / Request for Correction / Exhibits A, B, B1, C, D, E

*NIST has confirmed that the effective deadline for the appeal is September 28, 2020, because September 27 — which is 30 days after NIST's initial decision — falls on a Sunday.


Wait! Before you go, please make a donation to help cover our legal fees and ensure the strongest possible appeal!

Related News

One woman’s story of academic resistance to WTC 7 evidence

Performed in Italian, Le Caverne has the potential to bring awareness of 9/11 truth to a whole new audience in a part of the world that is far from the World Trade Center destruction of September 11, 2001.
Read More...

Italian performer uses art to shine a light on 9/11

According to Gasparini: “The song denounces the social apathy towards the abuse of truth perpetrated by the state and by the empire.”
Read More...

‘Calling Out Bravo-7’: a firefighter’s perspective on Building 7

“ Calling Out Bravo-7 is the best, most detailed and most informative film to date on the collapse of World Trade Centre Building 7. A very important piece of work. ” – Tony Rooke, film producer.
Read More...

It’s the first ‘WTC 7’ search result on YouTube… but is it valid?

When you search for “WTC 7” in YouTube, the top video that comes up doesn’t question whether explosives were used to bring the building down on 9/11
Read More...

As engineers, we have a legal responsibility to guard the public’s safety.

We are a small non-profit taking on a tremendous issue, and we need your support to help fund these efforts.

If you believe in the power of dedicated people and their ability to change the world, then please make a donation right now!

Thank you so much for your continued support and your willingness to stand with us! 

 

 

From Architects & Engineers for 9/11Truth and filmmaker, Dylan Avery comes this short documentary that is both hauntingly beautiful in its presentation and startlingly grim in its revelations. 


Join civil engineer, Jonathan Cole through an informational odyssey as he revisits the controversy surrounding the impossible destruction of towers 1, 2 and 7 on September 11th 2001, and how his research, along with the research of others, has pulled the rug out from under the conclusions offered by the federal government on why those three buildings ultimately failed. 

Through Cole's testimony, and that of mechanical engineer, Tony Szamboti, a dark picture comes into focus that demonstrates that not only is the official story of what killed so many people on America's darkest day provably false but that the federal government actively and willfully turned a blind eye to the observable facts during its unscientific investigation of the building collapses. 

In a little over twenty minutes, Thirty Seconds of Silence reveals more about the destruction of the three World Trade Center towers on 9/11 than the media has revealed to the public in the over twenty years since the event took place.